Crossrail/Extended Underground

[papa lazarou]

So what would people prefer?
What do you think will be the ultimate option voted for by the people with the money?

Personally I would have both - why must we always be the followers instead of the leaders when it comes to solving public transport/congestion problems?

[Sharon]

This should be a poll!!!

(will add one )

[james73]

Both. But I cant see the Underground being extended - it'd be just too expensive.



James H

[Alycidon]

Both, but as I have said before, I don't think that the current plans for Crossrail are radical enough. It still seems to be a SPT sponsored plan and they are only looking at routing suburban services over it, it needs to be used for long distance trains as well, to provide a better service for example for Ayrshire folk wanting to travel to Edinburgh.

[Dugald]

I have experienced this 'crossrail ' problem, as a tourist, in Glasgow, and it really is a bloody great pain in the neck! I arrived in Glasgow Queen St early one wet Sunday morning enroute from Edinburgh to Largs, with a bicycle. The streets were totally empty except for a few beer-bottle wielding types, who made things even worse, and riding the bike wasn't an option! The short trip to the Central was hair-raising.

I'd vote for both the Crossrail and the Extended Underground, but if only one is to be allowed, I think the Crossrail would be the more important of the two.

You know, we have exactly the same problem between Largs and Wemyss Bay. I think this fellow, Lord Kelvin (?) had something to do with this.

[Alan L]

If money was no object, I'd vote for both. Unfortunately with finite funds, I'll go for Crossrail.

I reconk Crossrail will benefit more people than the subway extension for subststantially less outlay. As has been mentioned on other threads, much of the area to be served by the proposed subway extension already has a good overgroaund train service, which would be further enhanced by Crossrail. Crossrail would also benefit those living outside the city.

The subway should be retained with, as a bare minimum, replaced rolling stock and improved stations. I can't believe thet the cost of obtaining bespoke rolling stock for the narrower subway guage is so high as to make widening or boring new tunels viable though.

[hazy]

This is my radical idea. Contiue the tunnel at Queen street to central station. It would then end up just under or beside Central station. Two jobs for the price of one.

[Alycidon]

This is my radical idea. Contiue the tunnel at Queen street to central station. It would then end up just under or beside Central station. Two jobs for the price of one. ::

This idea was proposed by the SPT a number of years ago, with a parallel tunnel to the existing Queen Street Tunnel and an underground station beside the main line station.
However there were a number of fairly obvious obstacles, number 1 being the existing low level station. This meant that any North/South deep level station would have a track level some 150ft below the platforms at the High Level Station. Now the gradient up Queen Street tunnel is already a nasty 1:43/1:47 so the tunnel to the deep level station would need to have a steeper gradient. Problem 2 is that there are no plans now or in the forseeable future to electrify the lines out of Queen Street, so all trains passing through the deep level station would be nasty fume emitting DMUs. anyone on the platform as a 158 revs up to tackle the bank to Cowlairs would be suffocated